Is (an extreme?) interest in a BDSM lifestyle a psychological problem?

[Wondering_Newb]

@CM

I've met people like that too. Generally in the past the focus was on behavior in pscyhology. Today it is on thoughts. Regardless I wouldn't considering lacking empathy as healthy or normal. Does that mean that the person can't function normally? No. As I said having this trait sometimes even helps in attaining material success and even friends.

Compare it to smoking. Smoking isn't healthy unless the relaxation you get from it is the only way you can get it and you have some serious stress disorder or something (making things up here). But it can still be nice, still be managable.


Concerning the rest:
Well as we both know there are as many definitions of a term in this world as people ;-)

I'm not even sure what you mean by enjoying humiliation. I gave you an argument why it may not be good. If you feel it is merely an imperfection that needs no more attention and that is thus managable then fine. I'm not here to label you, I'm not even sure there is anything to label. Just to discuss the issues if any

 

[Bramblethorn]

Now here are a few things and people excluded from this:
People looking for a endorphine high
Light BDSM switching in couples to explore their trust levels with each other.
Possibly individuals seeking to broaden their horizons.
Individuals with submissive or dominant traits expressing those and thus identifying with this sexual trait*




So what are we left with?
Well the fourth exception* is perhaps the trickiest. Where does one draw the line? To define the line let's start looking at the in my opinion most extreme examples:

From worst down to the mildest form of possible psychological issue:

People getting triggered by any type of behavior with humiliates them continously. Indeed they seek humiliation for themselves and not in the sense of being a humble/submissive individual.

Purely sadistic individuals that possibly have sociopathic strains in them. Their sadism stems not only for the desire of control and power but from the suffering of others. Actual suffering. They are perhaps interested in "breaking" their subjects instead of making them stronger. Just enough self control or intelligence not to go on a rape, murder or torture rampage on unwilling victims.

People whose submission is brought about from depression, solitude, a position from which submission may be the only way out.

Generally the cuckhold-lifestyle. It mixes several aspects of this but the most puzzling part for me is the search of a so called "Bull" for the supposedly dominant female who then goes on to humiliate her.

24/7 relationships of strictly enforced rules. Why not submission or dominance when both feel like being in that mood? Slightly unhealthy. Nobody is something all the time.

You know what I don't get?

People who drink beer. It's unhealthy, involved in all sorts of medical and social problems, and I can't imagine why anybody would like the taste. And to deliberately reduce their own levels of self-control and awareness?

People who like football. It risks all sorts of injuries to the players and it makes no sense - what does it achieve to spend millions of dollars on two teams competing to move a ball in opposite directions? And what on earth do people get out of watching, other than 'chair disease'? Why do people feel emotionally invested in the success/failure of a team based just on where they happen to live at the time?

I could do this all day. There are plenty of things that people get to enjoy without having to justify themselves, even things that are harmful and might kill them. But we don't pathologise footballers or their fans or "moderate" beer drinkers or assume that they're fucked-up for liking what they like. We don't diagnose mental illness in people who vote for political parties who are going to screw them over. But BDSM? Ew, icky, that has to be defensible or you're crazy.

People are complicated. You can spend a lifetime trying to understand what it is to be happy and why other people like what they like, and you'd still be barely scratching the surface. Being something of an Aspie, I don't even kid myself that I understand what makes strangers tick; I find it easier to work on the (rebuttable) assumption that they have their reasons and those reasons make sense for them.

It seems to me that all these types could have a proper diagonisis put on them. Control Freaks/Obsessive behavior on the 24/7 aspect and then worse and worse diagnosis as we move furhter up the subjects/examples.

Before you get too enthusiastic about this, you might want to spend a little time reading up on the incredibly long and problematic history of inventing psychological "disorders" to give social prejudices a science-y veneer of respectability. Hysteria, homosexuality, drapetomania, dysaethesia aethiopica, sluggish schizophrenia... the list goes on and on.

It seems destructive. Now this may sound weird in the context but many of these I would put into the same category of the people in the Cave in Platos allegory about the Cave or what ever variance of the invisible chain or the slave that never moves outside of the chains length and so never knows he is a slave.

To me this simply reads as "these people think they're adults capable of making their own decisions about how to live their lives, but I'm smarter and I know better". And if you think consensual BDSM is "destructive", you ought to see the damage that can be done by pathologisation of personal choice.

Slavery in this example is not related to BDSM. But I know what some of you may think: What if they want to be a slave?

Well...That's what we are discussing here. Edit:That's actually an interesting example. Can someone really wish for to be a permanent slave and have a completely healthy mind not spoiled or distraught by experiences before or during the relationship?

Let me answer that with another question:

"Can anybody, in or out of BDSM, really have a completely healthy mind not spoiled or distraught by any previous experiences?"

The answer is obviously no. You can find trauma in anybody's life if you go looking - and once you declare these things to be "illness", that's exactly what people will do.

And frankly, even if people's preferences are shaped by previous experiences... so what? The reasons why John Smith likes to be tied up and humiliated are far less important than the facts that he does like that, and he's an adult who has the right to pursue happiness in his own way unless that's interfering with somebody else's ability to do likewise.

Here I can understand that someone would want a slave (different from an equal but submissive partner) but wouldn't that demand some type of egomania or at least issues with ones ability to feel empathy?

As above, there are plenty of times when I find myself thinking "I can't understand why a healthy person would want X". But I try to keep in mind that this might well be a lack of empathy on my part rather than a problem with them. People are complicated, and our imagination isn't always up to the task.

Actually, there are psychological disorders known as Sexual Sadism Disorder and Sexual Masochism Disorder.

Sexual Masochism Disorder only exists if it cause significant clinical distress and impairs everyday life. Like one MUST be used and will miss work, school, etc so they can be used.

Sexual Sadism Disorder exists if the person has attempted to do this with a non consenting person.

For more information, look up the criteria in the DSM-5.

Just a reminder that the DSM is fallible and the psychiatrists who compile it have never been immune to the prejudices of their day, especially on sexual issues. From 1956 to 1974 the DSM classified homosexuality as a mental disorder, and it still doesn't deal well with transgender issues. So I wouldn't recommend treating it as a source of truth on this issue.

The DSM's shift towards only pathologising things that "cause distress" is an improvement on the previous versions, but it's still problematic because "distress" depends so much on your environment - you can be mentally "disordered", or not, depending on whether your neighbours accept your peculiarities or choose to give you distress about them.

 

[Wondering_Newb]

That's why I'm trying to view this from a perspective of what is healthy and what is not. Clearly drinking too much is bad for you. Smoking is bad for you. So it's unhealthy.

It's probably unhealthy to join in fights over football. You get to practise your fighting skills too though and get that adrenalin pumping.

So what, right?

Well not quite. You've taken up a position that the "world" looks down/has overt interest in BDSM. That's wrong. There's far more pressure on smokers or drinkers, even radical football fans than on kinky people.

Fine, going about telling people you'd like to tie them up might get you a few more weird looks than if you ask them for a smoke. But as an issue in society it is barely considered.

 

[damselfly_]

I was just signing in to say something similar to Bramblethorn, albeit in a much less elegant way. I was going to use golf as an example, but theirs are so much better.

I continued to write for a bit, but I don't know that I have anything terribly constructive to add at this point. It keeps getting snarky, and I'm not sure that's helpful. I will say that lumping the disorders listed in the DSM under the BDSM umbrella strikes me as silly. I really wish we had separate words for things like sadism with consent, and sadism without it.

OP, you obviously need to research. A simple google search would bring up articles in peer-reviewed journals that disagree with your opinion. As a tip? If you need to tell people to take a breath before reading what you have to write, perhaps ponder it a bit more. Good luck.

 

[damselfly_]

That's why I'm trying to view this from a perspective of what is healthy and what is not.

For me, that line is consent. Anything else isn't my business, unless they are someone close to me. Then, I'll totally butt in if I have a concern. Otherwise, it's not my job to be the BDSM police.

 

[Wondering_Newb]

Hey. Let me write this on a conservative christian forum and I will be invited to make a speech ;-)

Of course people will get upset if someone gets into their lifestyle choice and begins a debate concerning the most basic elements of that choice.

 

[Wondering_Newb]

For me, that line is consent. Anything else isn't my business, unless they are someone close to me. Then, I'll totally butt in if I have a concern. Otherwise, it's not my job to be the BDSM police.

For me it is not. Consent does not equate a healthy or sane behavior. It's just that an unhealthy behavior can be proven to be either not unhealthy or managable.

I smoke cigars rarely. I know it's unhealthy. I accept this fact for it brings me a degree of pleasure that I enjoy in comparison to its risks.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I met someone the other week who was very open about the fact that he lacks empathy. His way of dealing with it? To accept that about himself, be very open and honest about the trait with potential partners/ friends/ family, and let everyone know they'd have to ASK for empathy, if they needed it.

Sounds pretty functional and healthy, to me.

I love people like that, because I get very tired of folk who think they can read my mind getting it horribly wrong.

I saw an interesting article a while back; I can't find a cite at the moment, but if I recall correctly the gist of it was: most people (both neurotypical and Asperger's types) are pretty bad at actually reading other people's emotions. Instead, we analyse their situation in terms of ourselves: what would it mean if I said that to somebody in that tone of voice? How would I feel if it was my grandfather that died?

So when a neurotypical person projects their own feelings onto another neurotypical, they have a pretty good chance of guessing the right answer. But when they try to read an Aspie, or vice versa, they're more likely to get it wrong. The difference is that Aspies are more likely to be aware of that limitation.

 

[damselfly_]

For me it is not. Consent does not equate a healthy or sane behavior. It's just that an unhealthy behavior can be proven to be either not unhealthy or managable.

I smoke cigars rarely. I know it's unhealthy. I accept this fact for it brings me a degree of pleasure that I enjoy in comparison to its risks.

How have you conducted your research to prove your opinion on the fact that BDSM is unhealthy or insane?

 

[CutieMouse]

I've met people like that too. Generally in the past the focus was on behavior in pscyhology. Today it is on thoughts. Regardless I wouldn't considering lacking empathy as healthy or normal. Does that mean that the person can't function normally? No. As I said having this trait sometimes even helps in attaining material success and even friends.

I'll be sure to inform all the INTPs of the world how unhealthy they are. BTW - Einstein, Eisenhower, Jung and Socrates were all INTPs.

Compare it to smoking. Smoking isn't healthy unless the relaxation you get from it is the only way you can get it and you have some serious stress disorder or something (making things up here). But it can still be nice, still be managable.

Except for the whole increased risk of cancer thing... If I met someone who's ONLY coping skill for their life was smoking, I'd be concerned for their well being. But statistically speaking, I would imagine the number of people who use acts of BDSM as their ONLY coping skill are very few and far between. Those are the people who fall under the "disorder" category; not your average kinkster. And they would still fall into the "disorder" category, even if their coping mechanism was drinking chocolate milk.

I'm not even sure what you mean by enjoying humiliation. I gave you an argument why it may not be good. If you feel it is merely an imperfection that needs no more attention and that is thus managable then fine. I'm not here to label you, I'm not even sure there is anything to label. Just to discuss the issues if any

No, you misunderstand.

Your view of humiliation [in a BDSM context] is that humiliation is a bad thing that automatically leads to self esteem issues/ etc. Perfectly understandable, given that non-consensual humiliation (for example, being ridiculed as a child in front of friends, criticized by your boss in front of peers, etc) tends to be a source of negativity and usually causes issues with self-esteem.

My comment, however, was pointing out that it is possible to take something "humiliating" (an imperfection for example), examine it within a safe environment (D/s with hard and soft limits agreed upon), deal with the humiliation, and come out the other end, still just as loveable as before. It is possible (IMO) to feel lightly embarrassed, or awkward, or under the microscope, and find one's self esteem strengthened for the experience. That's been my experience.

Curious question -

You commented earlier -

feel that you fall into the category of a submissive personality

What does that mean, to you? Because in your comments, you're talking as if someone who ID's this way never has alone time, gets punished for normal everyday human mistakes, as if they would have to explain or defend themselves for things... I get the impression that accepting that about myself (BTW - I recognized it long before I ever attempted switching, and only "switched" under pressure), is viewed negatively by yourself.

When I say I operate my relationships as a 24/7 power dynamic, with partners who define that similarly (if not the same way) as myself, what do you imagine that looks like on a day to day basis?

 

[CutieMouse]

For me it is not. Consent does not equate a healthy or sane behavior. It's just that an unhealthy behavior can be proven to be either not unhealthy or managable.

I smoke cigars rarely. I know it's unhealthy. I accept this fact for it brings me a degree of pleasure that I enjoy in comparison to its risks.

Define healthy and sane.

I feel that 98% of Americans eat a horrible diet, and are the unhealthiest people on the planet. Their unhealthy attitudes towards food are going to bankrupt the country's healthcare system. And?

Safe Sane Consensual
Risk Aware Consensual Kink
Personal Responsibility in Consensual Kink

Those are all pretty standard foundations for the things kinky people do. Safe and sane can always be debated, always have been debated, and always will be debated. For example, there's a twit over a Fetlife who swears bondage is always 100% safe. Period; end of story. I pointed out I have joint issues, so for me, bondage is not a safe activity. It is very very very rare for me to consent to bondage of any sort, because I want to be safe, am aware of my limitations, and believe in personal responsibility.

 

[Wondering_Newb]

CM what do INTPs have to do with sociopaths?

It is possible (IMO) to feel lightly embarrassed, or awkward, or under the microscope, and find one's self esteem strengthened for the experience. That's been my experience.

I agree with this. See, we need to define things.

What does that mean, to you? Because in your comments, you're talking as if someone who ID's this way never has alone time, gets punished for normal everyday human mistakes, as if they would have to explain or defend themselves for things...

Well I changed my topic to include (in extreme?). Perhaps your relationship is on the lower end of this. Perhaps you fit into the fourth exception I put forth. Where to draw the line you probably know better than me for yourself. And in that case it is not an issue.

I have met a few couples I'm pretty sure barely know what BDSM is but have a dynamic of one more submissive individual and one more dominant. This one couple I know clearly have such a dynamic. Mistakes in cooking and cleaning are scrutinized. Both are super-assertive but one seems to get the final word far more often when they don't end up agreeing.

Take it cool, yo

 

[BiBunny]

There's more to being a sociopath than just lacking empathy. Just sayin'.

 

[Wondering_Newb]

Yup.
But I don't want to use the word psychopath to which there is even more or "anti-social" or "narcissistic" because those are very broad.

Perhaps I should use narcissism instead? But a narcissist can be dependent on other peoples love and thus appear very empathic, even feel empathy. A sociopath is not really concerned with this unless it becomes a personal obsession of some sort.


edit: Hey guys I don't think I'll have time to answer every post as I've done up til now anymore but if someone comes up with some new interesting thoughts I'll of course answer. Just in case someone feels forgotten or ignored.

Always important to start a discussion ^^ ...just hard to keep it going alone.

 

[BiBunny]

Yup.
But I don't want to use the word psychopath to which there is even more or "anti-social" or "narcissistic" because those are very broad.

Perhaps I should use narcissism instead? But a narcissist can be dependent on other peoples love and thus appear very empathic, even feel empathy. A sociopath is not really concerned with this unless it becomes a personal obsession of some sort.

Sociopathy involves a lack of remorse in addition to a lack of empathy, as well as reckless behavior and lack of impulse control.

Narcissism involves a lack of empathy, a sense of entitlement, and a sort of twisted and self-absorbed solipsism.

A lack of empathy without those other features is just...a lack of empathy. There's no need to label it as anything else because it's not anything else.

 

[CutieMouse]

CM what do INTPs have to do with sociopaths?

You said the person I described didn't sound healthy or normal. The person I described, that you didn't think sounded healthy or normal (although possibly professionally successful), disclosed how his mind operates because we were discussing personality types; he's an INTP. When you didn't know that, you felt his self-description wasn't healthy or normal; thus, my comment about INTPs.

I agree with this. See, we need to define things.

Soooo we went from this:

I can't really do an analysis of you on the humiliation thing. If you say it isn't enforcing any negative traits within you, not driving you into reclusiveness or lowering your self-esteem then I have to believe you. Why do you think you get off on it?

to you agreeing with me.

sigh

Well I changed my topic to include (in extreme?). Perhaps your relationship is on the lower end of this. Perhaps you fit into the fourth exception I put forth. Where to draw the line you probably know better than me for yourself. And in that case it is not an issue.

I have met a few couples I'm pretty sure barely know what BDSM is but have a dynamic of one more submissive individual and one more dominant. This one couple I know clearly have such a dynamic. Mistakes in cooking and cleaning are scrutinized. Both are super-assertive but one seems to get the final word far more often when they don't end up agreeing.

Take it cool, yo

I'm still confused as to why my relationship dynamics are anyone's business. Why does it matter if my relationships are on the "lower end" of some arbitrary scale you're interested in? And what if my idea of "lower end" is your idea of "Danger! DANGER WILL ROBINSON!"? What then?

 

[Wondering_Newb]

Sociopathy involves a lack of remorse in addition to a lack of empathy, as well as reckless behavior and lack of impulse control.

Narcissism involves a lack of empathy, a sense of entitlement, and a sort of twisted and self-absorbed solipsism.

A lack of empathy without those other features is just...a lack of empathy. There's no need to label it as anything else because it's not anything else.

Well we were talking about lacking empathy in a context. But fine. "A person lacking empathy". Sociopath fits in OP though.

 

[Wondering_Newb]

INTP doesn't have anything to do with a lack of empathy. On the contrary Einstein certainly did have empathy, he just wasn't that good at expressing it. He felt deeply about those suffering in war and poverty for example. Perhaps we just need to stop labeling people before it gets confusing for everyone, me and you included.
(Maybe a lack of rapidly and readily understanding other people...it's still not a great trait to have and an issue, and the person is obviously aware of the issue and tries to work out solutions on how to adress the issue. Kudos to him).

sigh

Sigh as much as you want. Those two sentences are perfectly compatible considering from what they originiated. There's no way I consider what you described there as a willingness to humiliate oneself outside the boundaries of your submissive personality and clearly neither does your motivation seem to be humiliation but the continued work to perfect your shortcomings for you and your partners pleasure *even though* it causes some slight embarrassment.

 

[Stella_Omega]

My edited answer to the original question; Define "extreme" define "psychological" and define "problem."

Matter of fact, please define "BDSM" as well.

I think some of us assume you think those words mean what they think they mean, and so far I see no reassurance of that.

 

[Primalex]

Actually there are two questions:

Is it psychological and is it a problem?


First of all you would need to define 'problem'. If I kill myself, is this a problem and for whom and why?

Okay, a less extreme real life example:
A woman visits a psychiatrist. A happy, buoyant, outgoing person, just with a "problem". She hears a voice that nobody else can hear.

The young psychiatrist is able to help her, with therapy and minor medication the voice disappears. Months later, as follow-up care, they meet again - and she has turned into a shy, nervous and insecure woman. And this time he invests a bit more time and learns that she had heard the voice of her former teacher, who always was there for her, with great advises and support. Now the helpful voice was gone.

The psychiatrist canceled the medication, the voice returned soon and he declared her as healthy and without need for any treatment - because the voice did not make her ill, the opposite was true, and that other people look at her confused occasionally, can't be the deciding factor - "different" does not equal "ill".



Then we need to define: what constitutes a psychological issue? Psychical problems can be caused by physical malfunctions. Is this a psychological or physical problem then? I assume you prefer the "If it's about thinking, then it's psychological", then the answer is always "Yes." because "showing interest" is not a physical activity.



But actually, I think replying is a waste of time. You didn't get it 9 years ago, you still don't get it and I doubt any written word here can change this. And you know what? You don't even need to get it, you are not entitled to get it either and we are not required to help you to get it.

I don't get why women like shoes more than men do, but I'm not going to the next virtual gathering place and try to figure out if there is something wrong with women and especially, I don't offer a completely useless question like "Is an extreme interest in shoes a psychological problem?"

So, yes, I'm not really writing this for you, I'm merely entertaining the other people in this thread here, who, for one reason or the other, take you serious.

 

[CutieMouse]

You're continuing to filter everything through your own perspective. I mentioned Einstein as an INTP, because when I Googled famous INTP? His was the first name to pop up.

I thought you were interested in knowledge, but apparently you're only interested in classification as it relates to your theories. For example, I had no idea "extreme" (whatever measure is used for that) meant we were discussing psychopaths.

Plus, you're analyzing my words, instead of listening to them.

Sooo... no longer an interesting topic.

INTP doesn't have anything to do with a lack of empathy. On the contrary Einstein certainly did have empathy, he just wasn't that good at expressing it. He felt deeply about those suffering in war and poverty for example. Perhaps we just need to stop labeling people before it gets confusing for everyone, me and you included.
(Maybe a lack of rapidly and readily understanding other people...it's still not a great trait to have and an issue, and the person is obviously aware of the issue and tries to work out solutions on how to adress the issue. Kudos to him).



Sigh as much as you want. Those two sentences are perfectly compatible considering from what they originiated. There's no way I consider what you described there as a willingness to humiliate oneself outside the boundaries of your submissive personality and clearly neither does your motivation seem to be humiliation but the continued work to perfect your shortcomings for you and your partners pleasure *even though* it causes some slight embarrassment.

 

[Wondering_Newb]

Well CutieMouse. You bringing up examples of people lacking empathy then labeling their lack of empathy as a result of (being a person of type) INTP and then getting mad when one of your INTP examples clearly is full of it is you not being interested in learning something. Not me.

Maybe don't google up things you aren't sure about? Although I do it all the time too, I just admit when I'm wrong.

Here's a quote from old Albert:
“Enjoying the joys of others and suffering with them - these are the best guides for man”


So your friend may have been classified under the personality type INTP and so may Albert Einstein have been but it is clearly not because of being classified as such that he lacks empathy.

 

[Wondering_Newb]

My edited answer to the original question; Define "extreme" define "psychological" and define "problem."

Matter of fact, please define "BDSM" as well.

I think some of us assume you think those words mean what they think they mean, and so far I see no reassurance of that.

I found your old answer quite good.

I doubt I can define BDSM. It's very individual. I gave a few examples I thought would be interestnig to base the discussion around

 

[Bramblethorn]

That's why I'm trying to view this from a perspective of what is healthy and what is not. Clearly drinking too much is bad for you. Smoking is bad for you. So it's unhealthy.

"Bad for you" in terms of tangible health-related impacts, yes. Except for things like schizophrenia where there's some evidence that smoking may actually help people keep far more dangerous symptoms under control which leads to a lot of argument about whether it's appropriate to enforce no-smoking policies in mental health settings but let's not get into that here.

"Bad for you" in an unqualified sense depends on how you define "you", which gets into philosophical territory. How do you value the trade-off between a long life and a merry one? How do we distinguish between my own spiritual and meaningful pleasures (like writing erotica) and somebody else's tawdry and superficial ones (like writing porn)?

Well not quite. You've taken up a position that the "world" looks down/has overt interest in BDSM. That's wrong. There's far more pressure on smokers or drinkers, even radical football fans than on kinky people.

Your reality sounds very different to mine.

In mine, the fact that a public figure drinks in moderation, or smokes, generally isn't considered newsworthy. It only makes the papers if there's some special circumstance, like somebody falling off the wagon after making a big point of quitting, or perhaps as trivia about somebody so famous that the slightest detail of their life has to be covered.

Even Barack Obama, probably the greatest wingnut magnet on earth - his attempts to quit smoking got a little bit of coverage, and if you look hard you can find a few people ranting about how Obama's inability to quit smoking something something moral turpitude something Benghazi, but it hasn't exactly been a damaging scandal. His predecessor was a recovering alcoholic. Ronald Reagan advertised cigarettes in his younger days.

Now imagine how the papers would have covered it if Obama had mentioned that he likes being tied up and spanked by Michelle. Do you think he'd be re-electable after that? I can't think of a single time where a mainstream politician has been outed for BDSM without it being a major, damaging scandal.

A few years back the News of the World found out that Max Mosley (Formula 1 chief) was into BDSM. They splashed it all over the front page with photos; I'm happy to say the High Court ruled against them and awarded him damages, but if the revelation had been "Max Mosley likes expensive cigars and brandy", it wouldn't even have made page 10.

I can tell you that I've experienced pressure for not drinking - I've been told by a colleague that there's something wrong with people who don't want to get hammered once in a while, that you can't really trust somebody until you've seen them drunk.

Fine, going about telling people you'd like to tie them up might get you a few more weird looks than if you ask them for a smoke. But as an issue in society it is barely considered.

It's "barely considered" in mainstream conversation because the stigma means that people rarely talk openly about BDSM in polite company. We've progressed to the point where people might joke about it or discuss a safely fictional version like 50SoG - but if I responded to that conversation by saying "50SoG isn't the sort of BDSM that I like to do", I would expect some very uncomfortable reactions. Hell, I knew one guy who was happy to tell people about his fondness for fucking dogs, but was morally offended by the fact that my partner and I practiced mild consensual BDSM.

But in some circles it gets discussed a lot - you will find feminist authors who believe that all BDSM is inherently patriarchal and oppressive (even when it happens between same-sex couples) and put a lot of effort into denouncing it.

For me it is not. Consent does not equate a healthy or sane behavior. It's just that an unhealthy behavior can be proven to be either not unhealthy or managable.

I smoke cigars rarely. I know it's unhealthy. I accept this fact for it brings me a degree of pleasure that I enjoy in comparison to its risks.

Yep. Now, I could go down the road of saying that you must be fucked up to believe that the short-term sensory pleasure of puffing on a cigar outweighs the risk of a horrible death from lung cancer, throat cancer, tongue cancer, gangrene, and all the other risks that smoking generates, because that's what "manageable" appears to mean in this context.

But I'm not going to. Because unless you believe it's a problem and ask for help, I assume that you're an adult whose priorities are different to mine, and I don't need to understand or empathise with those priorities to respect them.

Hey. Let me write this on a conservative christian forum and I will be invited to make a speech ;-)

That joke there? Actually not a joke for a lot of BDSMers. Because there are already more than enough conservative Christians making exactly the same arguments you've been making here (mixed in with some biblical ones) as part of a campaign against alternative sexuality.

Of course people will get upset if someone gets into their lifestyle choice and begins a debate concerning the most basic elements of that choice.

You seem to be saying "people are being defensive here because I've challenged their choices". That's only a very small part of the story here.

It's one thing to wander into a Rolling Stones forum and say "actually the Beatles were better and here's why". It's quite another thing to wander into an alt-sexuality forum and say "hey, you know how the medical system has been used to stigmatise and attack people like you for hundreds of years? I think we should make it easier for that to happen by defining the stuff you do as an illness."

The DSM isn't a Dungeons and Dragons handbook. It's a reference used by actual medical doctors to make actual diagnoses that have real-world implications. People can lose their jobs, their children, their freedom because of flavour du jour "illnesses".

 

[Stella_Omega]

I found your old answer quite good.

I doubt I can define BDSM. It's very individual. I gave a few examples I thought would be interestnig to base the discussion around

Then don't bother-- concentrate on the other words instead.